You're not wrong, honestly! I cherish my dislike of nearly every P&P adaptation close to my heart, but none of them are off to the extent that all MP ones are, probably even including the Greer/Olivier P&P. I think some really interesting things could be done with MP—and I guess I would concede that the Rozema MP is at least interesting, but it's so removed from MP the novel that at times it feels less critically engaged with MP than not really about it at all.
In particular, I've always found it interesting that Fanny and Mary are both charity cases (and family rejects) in different ways, though Mary has money, but the parallels between them fall apart in adaptation. The basic structure that makes them such glaring foils for each other (underscored by Fanny's antipathy-attraction towards Mary, since Mary is probably the most complex and structurally tragic of any of the female rival-figures in Austen) fails if they're just not that different.
And I'm honestly just sort of baffled by the apparent difficulty of recognizable LM Montgomery. One of the benefits of a shift to a visual medium is that narrative or descriptive passages that feel inappropriate to 2024 can quite naturally not show up in a cinematic adaptation, and dialogue shifted where necessary, since shifts to dialogue always need to happen regardless. (I also feel this way about Tolkien's painfully colonialist descriptions of his few heroic dark-skinned characters—you can still allow those characters to exist in a meaningful way, and drop the awful descriptions that would be weird and forced to include in cinematic form anyway). My favorite Montgomery books were the Emily books and A Tangled Web (the latter of which would probably benefit from a TV show rather than trying to pack all the drama into a feature film, lol), and it's difficult to see an industry that can't handle Anne doing right by either.
no subject
In particular, I've always found it interesting that Fanny and Mary are both charity cases (and family rejects) in different ways, though Mary has money, but the parallels between them fall apart in adaptation. The basic structure that makes them such glaring foils for each other (underscored by Fanny's antipathy-attraction towards Mary, since Mary is probably the most complex and structurally tragic of any of the female rival-figures in Austen) fails if they're just not that different.
And I'm honestly just sort of baffled by the apparent difficulty of recognizable LM Montgomery. One of the benefits of a shift to a visual medium is that narrative or descriptive passages that feel inappropriate to 2024 can quite naturally not show up in a cinematic adaptation, and dialogue shifted where necessary, since shifts to dialogue always need to happen regardless. (I also feel this way about Tolkien's painfully colonialist descriptions of his few heroic dark-skinned characters—you can still allow those characters to exist in a meaningful way, and drop the awful descriptions that would be weird and forced to include in cinematic form anyway). My favorite Montgomery books were the Emily books and A Tangled Web (the latter of which would probably benefit from a TV show rather than trying to pack all the drama into a feature film, lol), and it's difficult to see an industry that can't handle Anne doing right by either.